Shortly after the FDA issued its new graphic warning label rule in the March 18, 2020 Federal Register, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and several other manufacturers, distributors, and retailers filed suit against the FDA in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Public health groups successfully challenged FDA’s 2017 guidance indefinitely extending premarket review deadlines.
An e-cigarette manufacturer and trade association challenged the deeming rule on constitutional grounds.
Public health groups sued the FDA to compel the agency to require graphic warning labels on cigarette packages and advertisements. The public health groups won. FDA appealed, but dropped the appeal after it issued a new graphic warning rule in March, 2020.
E-Cigarette manufacturers and distributors challenge the deeming rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the First Amendment.
The Tobacco Control Act’s premarket authorization pathway does not violate the APA. Additionally, neither the pre-marketing authorization requirement applicable to modified risk products nor the free sample ban violate the First Amendment.
The legal issue in this case is whether San Francisco’s ballot measure, Proposition C – supported by JUUL Labs and purportedly a youth access law – would allow flavored e-cigarettes back onto store shelves in San Francisco, overturning city laws passed in 2019 and 2017 that were intended to ban e-cigarettes not regulated by the FDA and to keep products like Juul’s mango and cucumber nicotine pods out of the hands of teens.
The legal issue in this case is whether the Town of Yarmouth’s multi-step review process based on smelling, tasting, and physically examining tobacco products, including “concept flavors” such as Jazz, meets the evidentiary standard required by law to identify these products as flavored.
An e-cigarette user sued the FDA arguing that the deeming rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), as well as the First and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
E-cigarette manufacturers and retailers challenged the deeming rule on Constitutional grounds.
E-cigarette manufacturer and retailer challenged the deeming rule under the U.S. Constitution.
An e-cigarette manufacturer challenged serval aspects of the FDA’s deeming rule. The case was dismissed without any rulings on the substantive issued raised.
The legal issue in this case is whether the Town of Johnston, Rhode Island, has the authority to enact an ordinance that removes flavored tobacco products from general stores and requires that they be sold in vape shops or smoking bans, and that prohibits tobacco retailers from accepting coupons or providing discounts for any tobacco product.
The legal issue in this case is whether the Town of Middletown, Rhode Island, has the authority to enact science-based public health laws to protect its residents – particularly its youth – from addiction to tobacco products and the toll of tobacco-related disease and death.
The legal issue in this case is whether the Town of Barrington, Rhode Island, has the authority to enact science-based public health laws to protect its residents – particularly its youth – from addiction to tobacco products and the toll of tobacco-related disease and death.
The legal issue in this case is whether the City of Philadelphia has the authority to implement a tax on soda and sugary drinks, levied on distributors of the products.
Cigar retailers, manufacturers, and trade association challenged the deeming rule under the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The legal issue in this case is whether the District Court’s civil penalty against UPS for illegally transporting hundreds of thousands of cartons of untaxed cigarettes from Indian reservation retailers to non-tribal members in the State of New York is constitutional, well within the court’s discretion, and consistent with the harm to public health caused by UPS’s violations.
The legal issue in this case is whether the government has substantial latitude, and is entitled to deferential review, in regulating false and misleading commercial and professional speech within an industry, and in protecting the public from deceptive marketing and the purveying of misinformation by service providers.
The legal issue in this case is whether San Francisco's ordinance requiring a health warning on advertisements of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) violates the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.